stubby wrote:Bad news: BrikWars is trolls' natural environment, anyone who thinks otherwise is going to have a bad time.

Aye. But the trolls imply by their actions that they are ready to take as much berating as they dish out - such is the nature of the universe. If you punch someone, you are extending an invitation to be punched back. If someone is annoyed by the questions asked in a topic, no one is holding a gun to their heads forcing them to answer - they're free to simply ignore the conversation and leave it to the people actually interested in contributing to the discussion.

stubby wrote:What I think has more potential for BrikWars flavored strategy is a more story-focused game, where you hold battles and say "this is the effect the battle will have on the overarching plot" rather than strict resource accounting around "if you lose five units in this battle then you have five fewer units in the next battle." So I'm looking at story-driven games right now, although not really finding what I'm looking for yet. If I go this route, it'll be tricky to make it properly construction-brick-themed.

That would also give more "weight" to symbolic objectives/morale victories alongside objective tactical targets.

stubby wrote:Ideally I'd either like a system that gives the losing player the chance to pay a story price to bring his forces back up to parity for competitive battles, or I'd like a system that means a player could play a badly outgunned force in a losing battle and still have fun (probably because he knows it allowed his larger force to go off and do something more important).

Maybe something like in Rome: Total War? The tactical battles could still be fought by the standard rules, but then you'd have a certain amount of "strategic actions" you could take during the "seasons" in between (while in meatspace, the group takes a break to construct their new units and fortifications).

LEGO are like boobs - designed for kids, but adults have plenty of fun playing with them too.

Kirillyos wrote:Aye. But the trolls imply by their actions that they are ready to take as much berating as they dish out - such is the nature of the universe. If you punch someone, you are extending an invitation to be punched back. If someone is annoyed by the questions asked in a topic, no one is holding a gun to their heads forcing them to answer - they're free to simply ignore the conversation and leave it to the people actually interested in contributing to the discussion.

You're missing the point here. The trolls' contributions are as valuable to the discussion as the non-troll contributions. (Except when they start talking about themselves, then I ban them. Nobody has time for that.) That's why we have the .

Kirillyos wrote:Maybe something like in Rome: Total War? The tactical battles could still be fought by the standard rules, but then you'd have a certain amount of "strategic actions" you could take during the "seasons" in between (while in meatspace, the group takes a break to construct their new units and fortifications).

Maaaybe. I get the feeling the event choices in R:TW are hard-coded in, where BrikWars storylines need to react to ridiculous in-game events and be improvised from scratch, with the same flexibility as Heroic Feats.

Consider this possibility. Draft up a quick list of every important event in the battle. Like "Red King killed by friendly fire, red castle burned, blue and green heroes killed each other, green capital spaceship crashed into volcano," etc. For each event choose a winning side and a losing side for that specific event. Then you come up with one statement for each.

So: "Because the red king was killed by friendly fire" -> "the red kingdom was thrown into chaos with all allies fighting against one another for succession" -> "BUT a core band of patriots remained true to one another amidst the fighting.""Because the red castle was burned to the ground" -> "the red kingdom was left destitute, without money for knights or siege engines" -> "SO red loyalists became an army of ragtag partisan guerillas."

etc. etc. And once all the minor results were taken into account, the overall winner and loser got to declare the overall effect.

"Because the green kindgom won this battle" -> "they were able to take military control of the continent" -> "BUT the loss of the red castle left them without a seat of government to rule from."

And so forth. Then the next battle would be about them trying to build a new seat of government and ragtag partisan guerillas trying to sabotage their efforts.

The rule is that the modifier has to be less than half the scope of the main result. If the main result affects the whole kingdom, then the modifer affects a faction within the kingdom. If the main result is about a hero's abilities, then the modifier is about one of the abilities under certain circumstances. If the main result revives a dozen gods, the modifier also revives a quartet of opposing gods. And so forth.

Examples like "the blue and green heroes killed each other" would be tricky though, since it doesn't have an obvious winner and loser. Maybe both sides would get to stake an equal claim rather than one modifying the other's.

"Because the blue and green heroes killed each other," -> "The son of Sir Blue swore vengeance against the Green Kingdom and took up his father's sword," -> "AND Green necromancers spirited away with both bodies for purposes unknown."

stubby wrote:Maaaybe. I get the feeling the event choices in R:TW are hard-coded in, where BrikWars storylines need to react to ridiculous in-game events and be improvised from scratch, with the same flexibility as Heroic Feats.

Consider this possibility. Draft up a quick list of every important event in the battle. Like "Red King killed by friendly fire, red castle burned, blue and green heroes killed each other, green capital spaceship crashed into volcano," etc. For each event choose a winning side and a losing side for that specific event. Then you come up with one statement for each.

So: "Because the red king was killed by friendly fire" -> "the red kingdom was thrown into chaos with all allies fighting against one another for succession" -> "but a core band of patriots remained true to one another amidst the fighting.""Because the red castle was burned to the ground" -> "the red kingdom was left destitute, without money for knights or siege engines" -> "so red loyalists became an army of ragtag partisan guerillas."

etc. etc. And once all the minor results were taken into account, the overall winner and loser got to declare the overall effect.

"Because the green kindgom won this battle" -> "they were able to take military control of the continent" -> "but the loss of the red castle left them without a seat of government to rule from."

And so forth. Then the next battle would be about them trying to build a new seat of government and ragtag partisan guerillas trying to sabotage their efforts.

Examples like "the blue and green heroes killed each other" would be tricky though, since it doesn't have an obvious winner and loser. Maybe both sides would get to stake an equal claim rather than one modifying the other's.

[/quote]Like a cause-and-effect chain of IF>>>THEN statements, got it. BTW, the RTW thing was more of a general example than hard-enforced rules (like most of the suggestions have been). I get the feeling every group that does this is gonna have their own kit-bashed house-rules that fit the scale and narrative they want.

Last edited by Kirillyos on Mon Jun 17, 2013 6:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

LEGO are like boobs - designed for kids, but adults have plenty of fun playing with them too.

Just make about 5 spaces on a piece of paper, and have 3 teams get control. Follow the upgrade rules in starwars battle front 2: galactic conquest. (you have to buy new units, you start with hero and minifig) that simple. Also, telling trolls to go away will just derail a thread.

stubby wrote:Bad news: BrikWars is trolls' natural environment, anyone who thinks otherwise is going to have a bad time.

Aye. But the trolls imply by their actions that they are ready to take as much berating as they dish out - such is the nature of the universe. If you punch someone, you are extending an invitation to be punched back. If someone is annoyed by the questions asked in a topic, no one is holding a gun to their heads forcing them to answer - they're free to simply ignore the conversation and leave it to the people actually interested in contributing to the discussion.

Ah, punching! I do love myself some fisticuffs.

Also, I'm free to both decide to post and decide not to post. Saying GTFO is just as bad as complaining that nobody is responding to you. Either way, it makes you look childish and whiny.

stubby wrote:Have I really not posted in this thread yet? I thought I had.

I don't believe you have.

Okay maybe I'm being like a BrikWussie here but the problem for me with story-based combat is that I always end up emotionally invested in my characters and creations and I don't want them to die.

Like that's the definition of a BrikWussie right?

To mitigate this unfortunate condition I've found that I can use characters I don't care about or I can simply not name them and then I don't care so much if they die, but honestly the second a story starts to happen I get all the feels and yeah. No bueno. Maybe that's why I like roleplaying stuff. Not D&D mind you, I mean like the Quest for the Head Separator that got off the ground but ended up cancelled, because like with that no one had to die, everyone was unique (because they were themselves) and the only victims were the NPCs I was making. But even those nameless NPCs, like I developed feelings for them like fuck I'm just way too sympathetic.

Natalya wrote:Okay maybe I'm being like a BrikWussie here but the problem for me with story-based combat is that I always end up emotionally invested in my characters and creations and I don't want them to die.

Natalya wrote:Okay maybe I'm being like a BrikWussie here but the problem for me with story-based combat is that I always end up emotionally invested in my characters and creations and I don't want them to die.

Solution: Clones.

stubby wrote: my floppy penis gets first dibs on it for tradition's sake, but it doesn't seem likely that he'll want to stick around long enough to play.

Natalya wrote:Okay maybe I'm being like a BrikWussie here but the problem for me with story-based combat is that I always end up emotionally invested in my characters and creations and I don't want them to die.

6.2: The Ego wrote:The Immortal HeroHeroes have a way of always popping back up in one form or another no matter how many times you think you've killed them. If defeated, you'll discover that they were only captured in preparation for a daring escape, or left for dead in anticipation of a daring recovery. If killed, they are revived by magic, or science, or the will of the gods, or else it turns out that their wounds were exaggerated. If decapitated, it was really a robot double, or a clone, or an alternate-dimension doppelganger. If disintegrated, Heroes are teleported away or secretly rescued at the last second by a massive retcon.

Even in the rare circumstance in which a Hero's death was so Heroic and dramatic that it could never be taken back or plausibly denied, it inevitably turns out that they have a previously-unknown identical twin who is now determined to avenge their death.

No amount of deaths or defeats can prevent the best characters from finding a way to keep returning - unless they're boring, in which case nothing can save them.

6.2: The Ego wrote:The Immortal HeroHeroes have a way of always popping back up in one form or another no matter how many times you think you've killed them. If defeated, you'll discover that they were only captured in preparation for a daring escape, or left for dead in anticipation of a daring recovery. If killed, they are revived by magic, or science, or the will of the gods, or else it turns out that their wounds were exaggerated. If decapitated, it was really a robot double, or a clone, or an alternate-dimension doppelganger. If disintegrated, Heroes are teleported away or secretly rescued at the last second by a massive retcon.

Even in the rare circumstance in which a Hero's death was so Heroic and dramatic that it could never be taken back or plausibly denied, it inevitably turns out that they have a previously-unknown identical twin who is now determined to avenge their death.

No amount of deaths or defeats can prevent the best characters from finding a way to keep returning - unless they're boring, in which case nothing can save them.

Another option is for the hero to be a persona, rather than a person. Kind of like The Doctor, or Robin, or (unconfirmed) James Bond. When the hero dies, their second-in-command or some other likely character steps in to fill their shoes. That way, you can "keep" the character, but you've still developed the story somewhat.

Personally, I never really liked the whole clone thing. I know people don't want to see their characters die, but it's just so forced. Hell, just saying that they were recovered from the battlefield and healed is less of a cop-out. It even gives the hero a motive for revenge.